A VERY unscientific poll, Bush or Kerry?

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Except for the negative hysteria my issue is simply that Kerry hasn't proposed a solution that isn't more of the same and worse. He has no history of creative thinking and what we don't need is several years of careful studies and more self mutilation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I thought it was the Bush camp that was the expert at negative hysteria, what with telling us to stock up on duct tape and red/yellow/orange and all the doomsday rhetoric.

And I really don't understand how you can say that Kerry is proposing more of the same. Uh, Bush isn't exactly coming up with any new ideas to fix the mess he's gotten us into. All we're getting are pats on the head and "Everything will be fine, don't worry, we've got it under control."

I don't think there's a silver bullet that's going to fix everything in Iraq. BOTH candidates are saying they have roughly the same plan for Iraq. The difference is that Bush is going to have to continue to go it mostly alone. Kerry stands a decent chance of getting us more help... hell, if he was able to work together with Jesse Helms while in the senate in order to further the investigation into Noriega's involvement in drug trafficking, he should be able to work with anybody.

Bush has made too many mistakes. I don't want more of HIS same.

SLW, earlier on this thread someone posted how domestic spending has gone up, NOT including homeland security and the war. Bush is not a fiscal conservative -- he's been cutting taxes, yes, but he's also increased spending, and those two don't jive in the fiscal conservative book.

I'm not sure about the "size of government" specifics though... someone else will have to tackle that one.

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huntertwo:

If you read my post, I was not quoting Bush. I wrote what I believed.

Someone mentioned that Texas had a high rate of capital punishment and someone questioned how Bush could be pro-life and still support the death penalty. I said my own words, because the Murderers and Rapists are guilty of committing brutal crimes. The unborn are not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. But I wasn't asking a general "how does ONE justify ..." question. Bush has stated that all life is sacred. Yet he offed more people than any governor in history, I believe. Anyway, I asked the question because someone criticized politicians who are not "true to their faith" and cited Bush as an example of one who is. I didn't think many religions condoned capital punishment, which is why I asked.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I would also like to know where I was mocking and name calling? You asked about the Electoral College and I explained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you threw in a dig about the liberal Dems wanting to change it so their guy would win.

Somehow, I don't think the Republicans would have just said "Oh well!" if it had been Bush who was 500-odd votes short in Florida.

[nhwr]

Just playing catch up here (reading some of this thread I missed earlier today)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm honestly curious... how do you reconcile Bush's devout faith and his assertion that all life is sacred with the fact that as governor of Texas, he executed more prisoners than anyone in history? Including the mentally retarded? How is that policy reflective of his faith?


That would be because the Bible also institutes a death penalty for murder.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one thing I have never understood. The Bible does refer to execution, in the Old Testament. As Christians, we are supposed to embrace and accept Christ's teachings. You have heard of it, surely. It is the New Testament, you know... where it says "turn the other cheek"; "hate the sin, love the sinner". Even in the Old Testament, the 10 Commandments say "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill, unless carrying out a sentence for a capitol offense". It just says Thou shalt not kill. That is pretty straightfoward. If you believe the way the Bible describes the Cruxifiction is accurate, you ought object to capitol punishment.

And Summershyne7, nice touch, that about the Apocrypha. Um ... except weren't both versions of the Bible published before the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. There are several issues found in the Dead Sea scrolls that are not addressed in either text. They aren't the last word in corroboration.

[Beezer]

nhwr, as the granddaughter of an extremely devout woman and a relative to many more, I can tell you this much I know: Logic has nothing to do with it.

[xegeba]

Wait a sec... God wrote the Old and He wrote the New. Right? Seems crystal clear to me...

[Freebird!]

The Bible DOES indeed have a lot on Capitol Punishment, in fact God himself was the first to instigate it:

Genesis 9:5-6: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Leviticus 24:17-22: "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."



Romans 13 (RSV)
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

And of course one of the 10 commandments is "Thou Shall Not Kill" That does sound pretty straightforward, but of course when reading the Bible, we must use the Hebrew translation of words, to get the true meaning of the word, and the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as "kill" actually means "murder" or "to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly." So, in the Ten Commandments God is saying, "Thou shalt not murder." Hmmm....yes, that IS pretty straight forward, now isn't it?

So, now you ask...what about all of that "hate the sin, love the sinner, and about forgiveness. Well, as always, you will find the answer in the Bible:

Ezekiel 33:14-19: "Again, though I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' yet if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16 None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right, he shall surely live. 17 "Yet your people say, 'The way of the Lord is not just'; when it is their own way that is not just. 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. 19 And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it."

In other words, while God will forgive ANYONE who repents - and yes, that includes someone on death row, they are still accountable for their actions. Of course, once they have became a child of God, only their body will die, and they will live for eternity in Heaven.

We must remember that many of the laws here in the U.S. that determine guilt or innocence, are also found in the Bible. In fact, they were established by our forefathers, many who were godly Christian men who read and obeyed the Word of God. Many of these laws are listed in Exodus Chap. 21, 22, 23 Exodus and Numbers 35:15-34. I

So, yes, I would say that Capitol punishment is QUITE biblical, so as long as the punishment fits the crime, and I think Bush is true to his faith. Does that mean he is with out fault? Of course not. Everyone makes mistakes, yes, even Christians, lol, but I thhink for the most part, Bush has been a fair and just president.

[nhwr]

Freebird,

In our society, laws don't determine guilt or innocence, a jury does.

All the references you site that justify execution for capitol crimes are from the Old Testament. And you are correct, they are Hebrew texts. What we are bound to, as Christians, is Jesus' Word, which is found in the New Testament. Those who sin will and should be accountable for their actions. But they are accountable to God, not the government. We have the right, as a society, to protect ourselves from harm, but not at the expense of another's life. Otherwise, we are no different from the Romans. Except we have the benefit of Christ's teachings and his death, as an example of capitol punishment, so we ought to know better.

[msghook]

Bush.

[Beezer]

Dang it, nhwr, there you go being logical again! It won't work, I tell you!!

[nhwr]

Sorry, Beezer.

OK, not so much

[woudn'tYOUliketoknow?]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tory Relic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Karosel:
I plead to you Americans to vote Kerry!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I plead the opposite! Bush is bad enough, Kerry is worse. And I'm not a Republican! I will be voting an almost straight Democratic ticket otherwise. (Just can't vote for the woman running as a Democrat -- which she does her best to not say she is -- for the US Senate here.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad you haven't responded to my last post.. but I'm going to point out another inconsistency...you refuse to vote for Kerry and you refuse to vote for Inez, yet you say you are voting a "straight Democratic ticket otherwise"???? I realize we are electing congressmen, county officials, state senators, etc, but SERIOUSLY, it seems a little superfluous to say "I'm voting a straight Democratic ticket otherwise" when you're voting Republican for the two most MAJOR offices...

[Summershyne7]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And Summershyne7, nice touch, that about the Apocrypha. Um ... except weren't both versions of the Bible published before the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. There are several issues found in the Dead Sea scrolls that are not addressed in either text. They aren't the last word in corroboration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks.
And yes, they were both published before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. It would be more accurate to say that the lack of their existence in the contents of the dead sea scrolls gave further "proof" to biblical scholars that they were not, erm...eligible for the canon. Pardon my spoof. Although, I was taught generalities about the apocrypha, not being Catholic, so I'll admit to not knowing all that much. My knowledge of them is really limited to the fact that they are really a history of a the Macabeean revolt, sometime after the downfall of Jerusalem that was between the old and new testaments, along with books like "Bell and Dragon" which are quite as hard as Revelation to understand. Now, am I right in saying that the Alexander that reigned for 12 years in the book of I Macc. was Alexander the Great?

[xegeba]

So nhwr, what are you saying? Christians have no regard for the Old Testament?

[nhwr]

x,

Christians are supposed to be disciples of Christ, right? Christ's teaching are revealed in the New Testament. In my opinion, the Old Testament takes a back seat to the New Testament if you are a Christian. The Old and New Testament are very different, in tone and ideology. That is why Jesus was considered at radical in his time.

Summershyne7,

So you are saying that anything not verified in the Dead Sea scrolls is not valid? I am not really much of a biblical scholar, so help me out. How is what you are asking re: Alexander relevent?

[xegeba]

nhwr... come on down and meet some true to life BA's!!! Old, New, they take the whole thing to heart and then some. Now, those Catholic's... they got their own version of the Bible as does the Cof the LDS's. JW's? They got their own spin too. Whew... it seems to be way easier being a Jew.

[Summershyne7]

Christians cannot disregard the Old Testament. Through it, all the prophecies of the Messiah who was then to come that point to Jesus are in it, and the history of how Christianity came to be.
As to the death penalty thing, the Old Testament certainly advocates it. And then, it also advocates mercy.
One example I can think of is when one of the carriers of the Ark of the Covanent touched it to keep it from falling and instantly died. And yet, earlier, at the pleading of Moses, God did not kill the Israelites when they were worshiping an idol. So there, there is a balance of justice and mercy.
Jesus, said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And then, Ananias and Sapphira died instantly when they lied to the Holy Spirit about how much money they were giving. A balance of justice and mercy.
God even says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." So, basically, He decides each case on an individual basis. So, that's why, in my opinion, we should still have the death penalty available. Each case deserves an individual look at what it deserves.

As to the dead sea scroll question, I really don't have an opinion. All I said was that the absence of the apocrypha from the dead sea scrolls stregnthened the argument that they should be left out of the canon in the minds of most biblical scholars (and i am not one). At least that's what I was taught when I went to a Bible College.

The Alexander question has no relevance, I am just curious and am wondering if anyone knows.

[Summershyne7]

The Ladder Day Saints have the Book of Mormon. As the story goes, this Book of Mormon was given in a vision to whoever the founder of the Mormon Church was, by an angel who called himself Mulroni. This book is decried as not valid by most Christians, because it presents a Gospel other than what was preached by Paul and the other Apostles immediately after the Day of Pentacost. It was said then that if any other gospel is preached by themselves or angels, that whoever preaches that other gospel should be accursed.

Now the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there are acually only 144000 people, or "witnesses" going to heaven, and that you have to earn your way into heaven. Others just get to stay on earth for the millinial kingdom. This theology goes completely against the concept of grace, which means that God saves you because His son died and took the debt for your sins, and nothing you can do can earn your way into heaven.

I don't know what Cof is.

[nhwr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Christians cannot disregard the Old Testament. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can and should when it is in conflict with Christ's teachings.


The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh), but refer to them as "deuterocanonical" books. In this context, the term "apocrypha" generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the "pseudoepigrapha."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> God even says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." So, basically, He decides each case on an individual basis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with this concept, God making the decision is fine with me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So, that's why, in my opinion, we should still have the death penalty available. Each case deserves an individual look at what it deserves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a huge leap from God determining who deserves mercy and who doesn't.

[Summershyne7]

Well, certainly in the ultimate sense, God will determine who receives mercy. But that decision is made after that person is dead and gone. Here on earth, there should be justice and mercy too. If it's good enough for Heaven, isn't it good enough for earth?

[nhwr]

Well, in my experience, man's ability to determine what is just is imperfect, to say the least. Too much conflict of interest and "faulty intelligence", which brings us right back to Bush.

It is late for me. Good night.